Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant196; AIR1962Mys196
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this case who is a Havaldar in the Madras Engineering Group, Ulsoor and who is therefore an employee in the Indian army, was charged with having committed the murder of one Tatachari, a Subedar in that army unit on November 1, 1961. The information about this murder was communicated by one Captain Yedav, another officer in that army on November 2, 1961, and this information reached the concerned Magistrate on November 3, 1961. After the investigation was completed by the police, a charge sheet was placed before the Magistrate on November 22, 1961. On December 8, 1961, the officer commanding the army in which the petitioner was serving, made an application to the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Army Act asking for the delivery of the petitioner to him so that he may be tried by a Court -martial. The magistrate gave the officer commanding, the order which he wanted, and it is against this order that the petitioner complains in this revision petition.(2) It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR211
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition one under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent Smt. Kalavathi against the petitioner (the accused) for offences punishable under Ss. 494 and 109, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. 2. The matter arises in this way. On a complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of the JMFC., Saundatti, in Cr. Case No. 12/1982, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of four witnesses produced by her passed an order D/- 9-11-1982 directing issue of process against all the accused. The accused carried the matter to the Court of Session at Belgaum in Criminal Revision No. 10/1983 which came to be heard and dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, as per his order D/- 30th July, 1983. Being aggrieved by this order the accused have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Courts below. 3. Sri S. M. Kallur, learned Advo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant122; AIR1959Mys122; 1959CriLJ621; ILR1958KAR1; (1958)36MysLJ800
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The only point for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether a criminal court should proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure iu respect of immoveable property which is the subject matter of Civil litigation actually pending in a Civil Court.2. There is no dispute regarding the principal facts in this case. The respondent before me has already filed a suit against the petitioner in which he obtained a temporary injunction on 11-12-1956, which was made absolute on 16-9-1957, Upon appeal by the petitioner against that order, the District Court appears to have passed an order of stay suspending the operation of the trial Court's order dated 16-9-1957 till the disposal of the appeal before the District Court.This stay order was passed on 14-10-1957. On 6-11-57 the police made a report before the Munsiff Magistrate of Gulbarga stating that the parties are contending among themselves on the question of possession of the very pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant81; AIR1967Mys81; (1966)2MysLJ767
1. The petitioner was ordered by the Munsiff Magistrate of Bhalki to pay maintenance of Rs. 20 per month to his wife the respondent. The petitioner failed to comply with this order. The wife made an application under Section 488(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance as ordered by the court for one year from 2nd August 1962 to 2nd August 1963. The petitioner's counsel filed an application requesting the court to grant two months' time to make the payment. This application was opposed by the wife on the ground that in spite of the warrant issued by the Court, he had evaded payment. The Magistrate refused to grant time to the petitioner and passed the following order : 'Respondent's application for time is rejected. He should be kept in the prison till he pays the entire arrears standing due. He is committed to prison.' Against this order a revision petition was filed in the court of Session at Bidar in Criminal Revision Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2272; ILR2004KAR1706; 2004(6)KarLJ115
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J. 1. All these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and common arguments are advanced by both the sides, hence they have been disposed of by common order.2. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.3. Criminal petition No. 2853/2002 is for setting aside the order dated 20-7-2002 passed in F.I.R. No. 11/2001-02 by the Range Forest Officer, Kudremukh, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range Forest Officer to investigate the case against the accused for offences under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 35(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.4. Criminal Petition No. 2854/2002, 2855/2002 and 2859/2002 are filed for setting aside the order in F.I.R. Nos. 10/2001-02, 12/ 2001-02, 16/2001-02, respectively, passed by the Range Forest Officer, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range Forest Officer to investigate into th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant38; AIR1968Mys38; (1967)1MysLJ87
ORDER(1) These petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the common order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore under Section 413 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act,1949 (hereinafter called the Act). When they came up for admission before Govinda Bhat J., his Lordship felt that the question of their maintainability should first be decided and accordingly ordered a notice to be issued to the respondent. The question of maintainability depends upon whether the impugned order was passed by the District Court or by the District Judge as persona designata.(2) The petitioners who are occupants of different shops belonging to the respondent Corporation were served with notices demanding monthly fee of Rs. 80 from two petitioners occupying corner shops with Rs. 75 per month from the rest. These demands were made with effect from 1-6-1962. They filed various petitions (Miscellaneous Cases Nos.148to169of1963 and164of1964) under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT(Cri)454; 2002CriLJ4774; ILR2002KAR4351
ORDER1. In these petitions (PIL), the petitioners have sought quashing of Circular No. HCE 727 of 1994, dated 28-3-1998 [as amended by Circular No. HCE 272 of 1994, dated 30-3-1998], issued by the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka. The said amended circular reads as follows: 'HCE 727 of 1994 High Court of Karnataka,Bangalore. Dated 28-3-1998CIRCULAR In enclosing herewith an extract of paras 13 and 16 and the order portion in the order passed in Criminal Petition Nos. 2720 and 2789 of 1995, DD: 26-2-1998, the Section Officer, Receiving and Scrutiny Branch of this office is directed to act upon the directions issued in the above criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. in respect of the matters indicated therein. 'Further, not to receive any such petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. henceforth' '. 2. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge in the case of Kamalanjanamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., in compliance of which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR217
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The order that gave rise to this Criminal Petition is the order dated 19-1-1984 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in P.C.R. No. 115 of 1983 on an application I. A-I filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized goods worth about Rs. 4,88,965/- by the Koramangala Police on 18-11-1983 during the course of the investigation of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.2. I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they stood in relation to the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.3. To proceed further, it is relevant to refer to a few facts leading up to the filing of this petition.4. The complainant Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Private Limited represented by its General Manager Sri G. Ramesh has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Silver Audio System Private Limited...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)325; 1998(1)KarLJ665
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 805 of 1995 and 77 of 1996 are filed by the accused and are directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15-11-1995, recalling the order of discharge passed by the Court dated 1-8-1995, thereby restoring the complaint on its file.2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 is filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-8-1995, discharging the accused on the ground of not adducing the evidence before charge. Since the parties in all these revisions are the same and common questions of law and facts arise in these matters, they are by consent of the learned Counsels, clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 (who will be hereinafter called as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before the J.M.F.C., Haven in Dharwad District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 449, 504,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant35; AIR1965Mys35; 1965CriLJ187
ORDER(1) By this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order, dated the 23rd May 1963, passed by the District Magistrate of South Kanara, in Criminal Revision petition No. 3/63 filed by the State in his Court. By that order, he set aside the order of discharge passed by the Additional District Munsiff-Magistrate in C.C. 519/62 and directed him to make further inquiry into the case.(2) The question raised in this petition relates to the power of the District Magistrate to order to inquiry acting under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, into the case of a person accused of an offence who has been discharged by the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of S. 251-A of the Cri. P. C.(3) The facts leading to this petition may briefly be stated as follows :(4) The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Karkal Police for an offence under S. 406, I.P.C. on the allegation that 5th May 1961 and 5th November 1961 he ran a Fund called 'The Kury Chit Fund', and having b...
Tag this Judgment!